Public Affairs News , April 2007

John Grogan MP

The time is ripe for a parliamentary inquiry into the lobbying industry, argues Labour MP John Grogan.

Lobbying is a noble art. At its best, it allows a whole variety of business, charitable and public interests to articulate their case to Parliament, regulators and the government.

Unlike in the US, for the past decade at least the consensus within the industry has been very much in favour of self-regulation. These sentiments were echoed by the government’s response to the Nolan Committee (2000) when it stated that ‘there should be no statutory or compulsory system for the regulation of lobbyists. The current strengthening of self-regulation by lobbyists is to be welcomed.’

Meanwhile, in November 2005 the European Commission began to consult on ‘a more structured framework for the activities of interest representatives
(lobbyists)’.

Parliamentary inquiry overdue

Given this context the time is surely ripe to initiate the first parliamentary (as opposed to governmental) inquiry of any substance since the select committee on Members’ interests report on parliamentary lobbying (1990/91).

The inquiry could examine both how the system of self-regulation has operated in the intervening years and how government, Parliament and lobbyists themselves might strengthen it.

An absolutely essential and non-negotiable part of any decent system of self-regulation for consultancies engaged in public affairs work is the public declaration of all client and employee names.

Such a high level of transparency serves to bring the industry out of the shadows and – given the old adage that information is power – it puts power back where it belongs in a democratic society: in the hands of clients, potential clients and those legislators and government
officials who are being lobbied.

They, and not public affairs firms, are the best judges of any potential conflicts of interest.

Trade bodies lead the way

The Association of Professional Political Consultants (APPC) and the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) are to be commended on their efforts to develop ethical standards that encourage transparency and openness among their members.

In addition to rules governing the conduct of individual lobbyists, at the heart of both associations’ regulations are two key ethical principles.
The first of these is the comprehensive declaration of client and employee names in the form of a register.

The APPC recently strengthened its stance on this issue by making disclosure an integral part of its code of conduct, rather than merely a condition of membership, thereby closing a loophole for those firms who claimed adherence to the code while declining to name their clients.

This welcome move is one that I understand the PRCA may well emulate, as well as considering whether to follow the APPC in displaying its register free of charge, online.

It would also be useful if both organisations did more to consider the needs of sole traders.

The second key principle absolutely prohibits the payment of MPs or peers. It seems obvious that lawmakers should not be in hock to multi-client lobbyists given all the possible conflicts of interests that such an association brings.

Refuseniks are misguided

The minority of medium and large PA consultancies that refuse to subscribe to these ethical principles often justify their positions by alleging that the members of the APPC and PRCA have feet of clay and do not live up to their own codes.

Alternatively, they claim that the standards they set are not high enough – if this were the case, however, the best course of action would surely be to work with either association to strengthen their regulations.

Others have argued that because they are a PA unit within a larger multi-disciplinary organisation, disclosure of client names would prove impossible as it would mean compromising the ethical codes of other professions (for example, the Law Society code).

However, where there is a will there is a way, and it is noteworthy that multi-disciplinary firms in the US seem to cope with much more exacting standards of transparency.

‘Letting the side down’

I would argue that the real reasons for non-compliance with the APPC or PRCA’s regulations often boil down to securing commercial advantages or personal differences within the industry.

Those firms that choose not to subscribe to the approach laid out by the APPC and PRCA are badly letting the side down.

As Sir Philip Mawer, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, has
argued “self-regulation only works if it is of general application throughout the industry”.

Many agencies certainly fail to comprehensively list their clients. One justification put forward by agencies as a reason they do not do so is because certain clients insist on confidentiality.

In passing, I note that there has been some discussion among the APPC’s management committee that in certain exceptional cases consultancies would be allowed to not disclose client names.

But I fear that if the APPC watered down its code it would simply be playing into the hands of its critics.

Thames Gateway example

Government and Parliament could make two contributions towards furthering the cause of self-regulation.

One possible course of action for the former would be to follow the example of the Thames Gateway London Partnership and make it a requirement that any lobbying contracts tendered by public-sector organisations should be let only to those consultancies that demonstrate adherence to APPC or PRCA rules (as opposed to necessarily being members). Public Affairs News has previously covered my views on this in last month’s issue.

Given the APPC register for 2005 showed 10 to 15 per cent of all lobbying work was done on behalf of the public sector, I would argue that such a move would have a significant impact.

Moreover, I am heartened by approaches from some blue-chip companies that have indicated to me that if the public sector as a whole were to adopt such a standpoint, then they themselves might choose to follow suit.

Public bodies that have not yet made such a stipulation include the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (Bell Pottinger Public Affairs), the Commission for Racial Equality (Luther Pendragon), One North East Regional Development Agency (Sovereign Strategy), the National Museum of Science and Industry (BPPA), the Commission for Judicial Appointments (Luther Pendragon), the Royal Parks (Brunswick), and the Mayor of London, regarding the Greater London Assembly Bill (BPPA) and Crossrail (Finsbury).
The interaction between all-party groups and public affairs consultancies could also be examined.

Last year the committee on standards and privileges published Lobbying and All-Party Groups, which reported that ‘transparency would undoubtedly be assisted if all consultancies named their clients, and when considering whether or not to accept assistance from a consultancy, officers of APGs may wish to check whether or not the consultancy does so’.

But of the 54 all-party groups associated with public affairs consultancies, 34 continue to work with firms that are not members of either the APPC or PRCA.

Further issues to address

Other issues that might be examined by a select committee inquiry include whether former ministers should be duty-bound to seek and accept the advice of the advisory committee on business appointments before pursuing commercial employment; whether former MPs and spouses who are working for multi-client lobbyists should lose their right of access to a parliamentary pass; and whether Parliament itself should strengthen its own rules to prevent MPs and peers from receiving payment from lobbying firms (rather than the leaving burden of regulation entirely with the industry).

Much lobbying is of course in house, and discussions on developing principles that would span the whole sector are most welcome.
This should not distract us, however, from the task of improving the self-regulation of multi-client lobbyists.

John Grogan has been Labour MP for Selby since 1997.